A bit more geopolitical analysis and historical context regarding the Ukraine war.

I will address more geopolitics in this post. The main video attached is a great piece of geopolitical analysis from the Glenn Diesen channel, and I would really like to engage with that analysis. While I agree with much of his geopolitical perspective, at some point he misses the mark by not understanding why Europe is submitting to America – and that’s because he doesn’t fully grasp the U.S. dollar economy, the reserve currency system, and the broader monetary structure.

Here is the part I think is very important and with which I largely agree.

40:10

The Netherlands has, and also Europe, a question of ability to compete. The US successfully, in essence, cut off a reliable source of cheap energy: Russian gas. Whether you think it was deliberate or not, the fact is the United States was never, ever going to allow Europe to get together with Russia. If they did, Russian resources and European manufacturing would be a peer competitor, and maybe even the superior competitor, to the United States. And we don’t allow that. We didn’t allow that with Japan; we didn’t allow that with Europe. And we’re trying to do this exact same thing to China. We don’t change our ideas.

This is a kind of weird mixture of Kissinger’s idea that great powers stay great by using their power asymmetrically to enforce against anybody who challenges it, and then this secondary idea that somehow America is this shining city on a hill—where is the light coming from? Obviously from God, destiny, whatever you want to call it. So they are marrying these two ideas together. There is no rationality; everything is justified because we’re anointed by God. And the second part is, you know, in order to keep our power, we have to do some fairly nasty things, but it’s all justified in the end because it’s the greater good.

But in this case, as you pointed out, strategy is out the window. Rationality doesn’t work. Committee economics don’t even make sense, and there really is no goal other than staying, you know, playing king of the hill. And this is really where things have gone and are going to continue to go. There is no out for any of this stuff as long as Washington believes American exceptionalism is a rationale for doing the kind of realpolitik things that they have done in the past and continue to do.

This connects to a quote from George Friedman that I’ve used many times because it captures reality so well. Here is the quote:

“So the primordial interest of the United States, over which for a century we have fought wars—the First, Second, and Cold War—has been the relationship between Germany and Russia. United, they are the only force that could threaten us. Therefore, it’s not an accident that General Hodges, who’s been appointed to be blamed for all of this, is talking about pre-positioning troops in Romania, Bulgaria, Poland, and the Baltics. This is the Intermarium, the Black Sea to the Baltic, that Pilsudski dreamed of. This is the solution for the United States. The issue to which we don’t have the answer is: what will Germany do? So, the real wild card in Europe is that, as the United States builds this cordon sanitaire, not in Ukraine but to the West, and the Russians try to figure out how to leverage the Ukrainians out, we don’t know the German position. Germany is in a very peculiar position. Its former Chancellor, Gerhard Schröder, is on the board of Gazprom. They have a very complex relationship. The Germans themselves don’t know what to do. They must export, but the Russians can’t take up the export. On the other hand, if they lose the free trade zone, they need to build something different. For the United States, the primordial fear is German capital and German technology, and Russian manpower with Russian natural resources. That is the only combination that has for centuries scared the hell out of the United States.”

I’ve written many times about how Germany tried to make Europe independent from America, but that effort failed – partly because, while they did want European independence from the U.S., they also sought to make Europe subservient to Germany. They aimed to turn Europe into a sort of neo-colony of Germany, which angered many other European countries. The United States then exploited those grievances caused by Germany’s neo-colonial project, a project designed to benefit Germany at the expense of other European nations.

As the main video and George Friedman’s quote both point out, America does not tolerate peer competitors and feared a German–Russian collaboration. Germany was cooperating with Russia to get resources, process them in Europe, and secure markets in China. Nobody in China is buying Fords or some other American products because they’re s***, while Chinese consumers are happy to buy AUDI, BMW, and other European cars or other European products. With Russian resources and access to the Chinese market, Europe would not only be a peer competitor but could potentially become a superior competitor. Contrary to what many think, the American economy and most of its products are s***. America could not allow such a shift.

Because German greed pushed Germany to try to turn Europe into a neocolony rather than build a Europe based on equality and solidarity, several European countries became angered and sought to stop Germany. Those countries wanted Europe to be independent from America, but they did not want independence only to be replaced by subjugation to Germany.

People who claim Europe wanted this war are wrong. Lawrence Wilkerson said on many programs—including the Glenn Diesen program—that many of the warmongers in Europe were put there, or supported, by Americans. These warmongers act as tools and puppets of U.S. interests. Do you think figures like BlackRock Merz work in the name of German interests rather than American ones? Wilkerson has also explained how people from NATO—such as Jens Stoltenberg or Mark Rutte—were groomed by Americans and positioned in power with American support.

I also recently heard Larry C. Johnson (I don’t recall which program) say that he went to Russia and spoke with someone who had been in the Ukrainian intelligence service but who was actually a double agent working for Russian intelligence. When that agent was exposed, he fled to Russia. According to that source, the CIA was behind much of the operation; when Johnson asked about MI6, the man replied that MI6 was a junior partner and that the CIA organized and controlled the operation.

Now let’s think rationally—something rare these days. Who is the biggest loser in this war, excluding Ukraine, which is being destroyed and whose people are dying pointlessly? Europe is the biggest loser (with Russia also suffering heavy losses but gaining territory and maintaining a functioning stable economy). Europe did not want this war. The U.S. is the primary beneficiary: the conflict makes Europe more subservient to Washington and allows the U.S. to sell Europe expensive LNG, among other things. Why would Europe want this war? It was the U.S. that sanctioned Russia (and even sanctioned Germany over Nord Stream) and demanded that European countries increase military spending. Anyone with a working brain knows Russia won’t attack Europe so why would Europe have to arm itself to protect itself from invasion of North African countries? This is bullshit!

Finally, I want to point out where the analyst in the main video is wrong: he doesn’t fully understand the economy and the monetary system.

44:33

But my problem with this is I agree with everything you said, but if rational minds were looking at this, there’s an obvious solution: get together. If the EU and BRICS and ASEAN and all these merged groups—they don’t have to build a platform and get together or do anything—all they need to do is get a group of representatives, go to the White House, and tell Donald Trump, “It’s over. We’re not doing your bidding. It’s a multipolar world. Europe chooses to be part of that. We don’t want to be bullied by you anymore. You can do whatever you want to do. You can isolate yourself. You can tax your people to death. You can do anything you want, but we’re not going to be part of it.”

And if you try, we will start taxing your services, putting tariffs on them. We will tariff your goods. Remember, the United States is still the second-largest exporter in the world, and we’ll cut you off. And Donald Trump, being who he is, with Trump always chickens out. You can rely on this: when a bigger bully appears or somebody stands up to him, they get rewarded.

…

I’m hoping that Europe will suddenly realize that you’re better off being Trump’s enemy than you are his friend because he treats his friends like dirt. At least as his enemy, you’re going to get some respect. Use your leverage. Stand up. It’s time that Europe wakes up from this kind of dream state, as you described it, that they’re the wingman for the United States in this great, you know, liberal order. The liberal order has collapsed. It doesn’t exist anymore in the fashion that they want it.

 

So, when you have an alternative that is so simple, it seems kind of odd that they’re not availing themselves of it. I’ve talked to people in India who had an opportunity to do that. I’ve talked to people in Europe and South America. I said, “Why aren’t you just coming together? You don’t have to have a new UN. You don’t have to name yourselves as a group. You just send representatives from each side, and you just tell the US, ‘This is the way it’s going to be,’ and that’s the end of it.”

 

And Donald Trump would have no choice. He’s already facing huge domestic problems. Any pressure on him, and all of a sudden, you know, I can foresee it now: “Oh, you guys are my friends. You know, whoever the representatives are, ‘Oh, I like you. You’re a decent guy.'” All this kind of stuff. But I mean, how else can you express it?

I also have argued that Europe could push back against the United States primarily by taxing American services in Europe – or outright replacing them with Chinese alternatives. Europe could remove Google, Windows, Apple, and other U.S. services. And since it would be difficult to replace them immediately with European-made alternatives – because Europe would have to develop those from scratch – it could turn to China and offer to fully open the European market to Chinese services. At the same time, Europe could heavily tax or even ban American services on the condition that China sell Europe a stake in the companies competing with U.S. firms, such as Baidu, Huawei, Tencent, and others.

If China were to sell 30–40% of these companies – or at least a significant minority stake – to Europe, then as these companies grew wealthy and expanded thanks to access to the European market, Europe would benefit as a shareholder. I suspect China would accept this arrangement, as long as Europe did not acquire enough ownership to control the companies and China would be willing to share profits. Even if China earned less in the short term, it would still be satisfied because this strategy would weaken or even eliminate American competition.

This is what I would propose to Trump. The threat of the American service industry losing the European market is so severe that it could almost instantly cripple the United States, making it a powerful bargaining card. But the problem is that we are too deeply interconnected with America, largely through the euro-dollar system – and that is no accident. The U.S. intentionally tied Europe to its system.

This creates a major dilemma. If I were to present this strategy to Trump, he could simply reply: “Go ahead and try. It’ll collapse the American economy and the USD – and since you’re so connected to us, you’ll collapse with us.” Destroying the American service industry would indeed devastate the U.S., but because we are tied to the American economy and the dollar system, their collapse would bring us down as well.

This is what I’ve been saying all along: Trump is using a “Madman Strategy,” telling allies such as Europe, Japan, and South Korea, “Yes, you can destroy us – we’re vulnerable. But if you do, you’ll go down with us.” Trump signals to allies that America is weak and on the edge of collapse, so they should sacrifice their own interests to prop up the United States. If they don’t, America may fall – and because they are so interconnected with the U.S., they would fall with it.

This explains the subservience of America’s allies: if the U.S. is weak and near collapse, it is safer (though costly) to sacrifice your own interests than to risk going down with a collapsing America.

History of Ukraine.

as a Pole I know a lot about the history of Ukraine and Europe because I am at the center of it. Before the military conflict in Ukraine began, Poland was the main battlefield of this struggle. It was a political battlefield, not a military one, because control over Poland meant control over the future of Ukraine and influence over its direction.

I have written before about the book The Yankee and the Cowboy War by Carl Oglesby and my modern interpretation of its ideas: the Globalists (the modern version of the Yankees) and the Neocons (the modern version of the Cowboys). The Globalists were represented by Europeans – mainly Germany – and institutions such as the WEF. On the other side were the Neocons, represented by Americans and to some extent also Israelis/Zionists, especially through the U.S.-based think tanks like those behind the Project for the New American Century (PNAC).

I’ve written about this many times, and I even posted the video of Klaus Schwab bragging that he groomed both Merkel and Putin through his WEF Young Global Leaders program. Merkel and the broader German neocolonial project in Europe – which aimed to make Europe independent from America – ran directly against PNAC and the Wolfowitz Doctrine.

The Wolfowitz Doctrine, an unofficial name for a leaked 1992 Pentagon defense strategy, proposed that the U.S., as the sole superpower after the Cold War, must prevent any rival from emerging by maintaining military superiority, acting unilaterally if needed, and deterring potential competitors through preemptive actions and securing global resources. Key tenets included preventing regional domination by others (especially in the Middle East), ensuring U.S. hegemony, and downplaying the necessity of international coalitions, ideas that heavily influenced the later Bush Doctrine.

PNAC and the Wolfowitz Doctrine are exactly what the man in the main video – as well as George Friedman – are referring to. Merkel’s cooperation with Russia to secure resources and with China to secure markets threatened American dominance, turning Europe into a peer competitor or even a superior competitor – something American neocons could never allow.

Now, going back to Poland, where two major political parties dominate.

First, we have Platforma Obywatelska (PO, or Civic Platform) with Donald Tusk, who has long worked for the Globalists and for Germany. Donald Tusk was politically shaped by Merkel – he effectively kissed her ass and licked her boots. People often hear about Donald Tusk, but what they don’t know is that he is “so Polish” that his grandfather fought in the Wehrmacht – fought for the Wehrmacht, not against it. During the Cold War, Donald Tusk had files in the East German Stasi. So even then, he had no files in the Polish intelligence service (Służba Bezpieczeństwa, SB); instead, his files were in the German intelligence archives. Donald Tusk is Volksdeutsche, not Polish. This made me laugh recently when he visited Germany and claimed he had been warning about Putin – when in reality he was kissing Putin’s ass because Merkel ordered him to, and because Merkel essentially owned him.

Now we come to the second major Polish political party, Law and Justice (Prawo i Sprawiedliwość, PiS), founded by the late Lech Kaczyński R.I.P. and now led by his brother. I said earlier that this was a political fight in Europe, but there were also physical casualties. Interestingly, Poland’s only major plane crashes happened in Mirosławiec in 2008 – a plane carrying high-ranking Polish Air Force officers – and in 2010, the crash that killed the president and key government officials. Apparently, Polish planes only crash when someone important is on board.

PiS worked for the neocons – that is, for American interests. This is why you saw the famous visit by Lech Kaczyński to Georgia during the Russia–Georgia war (which Georgia started). Kaczyński pushed the American neocon narrative about “evil Russians.” I suspect he didn’t do so because he actually believed the nonsense he was saying; he likely knew Georgia started that war. But he pushed the American narrative because he knew it would weaken Germany. Germany was economically suppressing Poland. He knew Poland was too weak to fight German pressure alone, but with American help – and with America weakening Germany – German pressure on Poland would also weaken. So he made a deal with the Americans. As I said, Germany screwed itself through greed: instead of building a Europe independent from America on the basis of equality and solidarity, Germany tried to turn Europe into a German neo-colony where all countries would sacrifice themselves for German benefit. If Germany had not pursued this, America would not have received support from other European countries like Poland.

By the way, Poland was not a decisive factor – no one cared about Poland, and Poland was not independent. American neocons needed support from multiple countries. I argued before that Finland was likely involved because Russian gas competed with Finnish gas. France also had motives: France had become irrelevant and sidelined in Europe – no one talked about France when discussing Europe’s future; everything was framed as “what Germany will do,” as if France didn’t matter. America could also probably count on some support from Greece, Italy, and others, but Eastern Europe – especially Poland and Finland – and France had the biggest and clearest motivations.

Now I want to discuss Radosław Sikorski, a figure we hear a lot about and whose history is one of the most interesting and representative of what happened in Poland. In a recent video, Alex said Sikorski is stupid. I disagree. He is evil, but not stupid. In a recent debate I posted with Glenn Diesen, someone mentioned Sikorski in a way that I have pointed out many times, but of course that person misrepresented it.

14:51

Ukraine, and you also had protests happening in towns across Ukraine. This was a mass movement which the US could not engineer in its wildest dreams. The CIA has never had that scale of power to organize and mobilize people. So, Maidan was an entirely organic event. And let’s put it out there: the US actually tried to persuade the protesters—and they used the Polish foreign minister—they tried to persuade them not to go all in and confront Yanukovych, but to actually find accommodation with him, even after Yanukovych…

What he is talking about here is something I mentioned many times and I posted a video of this. Here it is.

Polish foreign minister Radoslaw Sikorski was overheard warning a member of the Ukrainian opposition that President Yanukovich would impose martial law if protesters did not support a deal with the government

Mr Sikorski was caught on camera telling a protest leader: “If you don’t support this [deal] you’ll have martial law, you’ll have the army. You will all be dead.”

When asked by ITV News whether he thought he had managed to persuade the opposition, Mr Sikorski appeared to reply: “I don’t know.”

Ukraine opposition leaders later signed an EU-mediated peace deal with President

Viktor Yanukovich, aiming to end a violent standoff that has left dozens dead and opening the way for a early presidential election this year.

I posted this before and wrote about it many times. First, the guy in the debate with Glenn mentions this, but of course he misrepresents it as if the West were one big family working together. As I said earlier, there was a conflict between the European/German Globalists and the American Neocons, which this guy either doesn’t mention or doesn’t even know about. Judging by his facial expression – and I’m good at reading people – he knows the truth very well, but he is simply misrepresenting it for his own benefit.

To fully understand this, we need to look at the history of Radosław Sikorski, who started in the PiS party and government, working for the American Neocons at the time. In 2006 he wrote a book in which he compared the construction of Nord Stream to the Ribbentrop–Molotov Pact, and on that point I agree. Putin’s biggest mistake was agreeing to build Nord Stream. Russian companies didn’t want to build it, and Putin had to force them to cooperate with Germany. By doing that, he made himself an enemy of Eastern Europeans. Putin could have built another pipeline through Poland or Ukraine, but instead he went ahead with Nord Stream despite strong opposition from Eastern Europe and the U.S. That resentment later allowed American Neocons to build an anti-German coalition in Europe.

In any case, Radosław Sikorski began as an American neocolonial tool, but later he joined the Polish PO government under the Volksdeutsche Tusk, who served the Globalists and Germany. From that point on Sikorski became a tool of Merkel, just like Tusk, and suddenly he became more pro-Russian because he was working for Merkel and the Globalists.

So while Sikorski started his career serving the American Neocons, he later switched sides and joined Merkel’s German Globalist faction. During the Maidan coup d’état in 2014, Sikorski was working for the German Globalists, which explains why he threatened Azov Nazi protesters to stop the protests on Maidan to halt the coup – because it went against the interests of his German Globalist masters like Merkel. Meanwhile, Victoria Nuland, working for the American Neocons, was handing out cookies to Azov Nazis and supporting the protests. Sikorski knew Nuland was orchestrating the Maidan massacre and coup, which would harm Germany and Merkel by worsening relations with Russia.

This may sound strange today, when Sikorski is a rabid Russophobe, but you have to understand that he is purely pragmatic: he first worked for the Neocons as an anti-Russian Russophobe, then switched to the German Globalists and became pro-Russian, and then when the German Globalist Merkel faction lost, he switched back to the American Neocons and became an anti-Russian Russophobe again. This man has no moral convictions – he simply says and does whatever his current masters tell him.

Now I want to address his famous “Thank you, USA” tweet. It was an act of frustration, because at that point he was still working for Merkel and the Globalists, and he lashed out because his faction lost. Think for a moment: if he was working for the Neocons and supported blowing up Nord Stream, he would never tweet that. The American Neocons who blew up Nord Stream didn’t want anyone to know it was America who did it. Sikorski just exploded emotionally because his German Globalist faction had been defeated.

There is one more thing I want to address: Merkel’s famous statement that Minsk was only meant to “buy time” for Ukraine to arm itself. When she said this, many people repeated it uncritically. At the time, I kept arguing that she was lying. I said Merkel wanted Minsk to work, but it didn’t because of the American Neocons. In my opinion she has lied claiming that she didn’t want Minsk to work because of Russophobia in Europe and because she didn’t want to be excluded from polite society as a “Putin puppet.” People believed her without thinking critically.

Ask yourself: why would she want Minsk to fail if that meant she couldn’t open Nord Stream 2, risk Nord Stream 1 and 2 being blown up by the Americans, and see all other pipelines closed by Poland and Ukraine? What interest did Germany or Merkel have in a war in Ukraine that would destroy their entire neocolonial European project, which was based on Russian gas? People didn’t analyze it – they simply believed it because she said it. As if politicians could never lie.

Not long ago Merkel said that even in 2020 she was trying to stop the conflict in Ukraine but was “blocked by Poland and the Baltics.” Yes, because Poland and the Baltics are apparently so powerful they can stop Germany. Somehow Poland and the Baltics were not powerful enough to stop construction of Nord Stream – which Germany built despite their protests – but now they are supposedly strong enough to stop peace. This is nonsense. Merkel is blaming her former slaves – Poland, the Baltics, and other Eastern Europeans – because they are weak and easy to blame. She cannot admit that it was the Americans who stopped her peace efforts, because she is too afraid to say it.

I believe Merkel genuinely wanted Minsk to work and did everything she could to prevent the war, because she understood it would destroy Germany – something I also predicted long ago, even when many people disagreed with me. Now, seeing what is happening in Germany, it’s clear I was right. If I knew this would happen, do you think Merkel didn’t? She knew exactly what would happen if Minsk failed. That’s why she desperately tried to make Minsk work and prevent the war; she simply lost to the American Neocons.

The Neocons also knew that many Germans feared the consequences. That’s why they made a desperate move – blowing up Nord Stream – because they knew Germany depended on it so heavily that even if America demanded its closure, Germany might still try to use it while Ukrainians were dying. At the same time, other routes for Russian gas ran through Poland and Ukraine, which America controlled. So by blowing up Nord Stream, they ensured Germany could not get Russian gas. Merkel knew this too.

Just think about the level of control America has over Germany—and even with all that control, the Neocons were still not confident Germany wouldn’t use Nord Stream. That’s why they destroyed it: just in case.

Anyway I will stop here. I could write a lot more and I hope you enjoyed it and please don’t be afraid to write comments. I would like to debate my ideas. Thanks to everyone who stuck with me until the end of my post. And, as always… 

“Knowledge will make you be free.”

― Socrates

+

“Knowledge isn’t free. You have to pay attention.”

― Richard P. Feynman

=

“Freedom is not free, you need to pay attention.”

― Grzegorz Ochman 

“The real hopeless victims of mental illness are to be found among those who appear to be most normal. “Many of them are normal because they are so well adjusted to our mode of existence, because their human voice has been silenced so early in their lives, that they do not even struggle or suffer or develop symptoms as the neurotic does.” They are normal not in what may be called the absolute sense of the word; they are normal only in relation to a profoundly abnormal society. Their perfect adjustment to that abnormal society is a measure of their mental sickness. These millions of abnormally normal people, living without fuss in a society to which, if they were fully human beings, they ought not to be adjusted.”
― Aldous Huxley, Brave New World Revisited

“No healthy society will tolerate an economy run by bandits supported by authorities and authorities supported by bandits without active resistance. If we are such a society, we should get rid of such masters.”
― Józef Piłsudski

“Our blood has soaked into the same soil, a land equally precious to both sides, equally beloved by all. (…) May God, merciful over sins, forgive us and turn away His punishing hand, and may we return to our work, which strengthens and renews our land.”

— Józef Piłsudski